Intel Core i9-7980XE vs Intel Xeon D-2775TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, across-the-board advantage for the Intel Core i9-7980XE in every benchmark comparison against the Intel Xeon D-2775TE. The delta percentages are remarkably uniform, hovering around 8.1% in favor of the i9-7980XE for the majority of tests, which indicates a systematic performance gap rather than workload-specific strengths.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-7980XE scores 2527 against the Xeon D-2775TE's 2338, a lead of 8.1%. The single-core test shows a similar pattern: 356 versus 330, a 7.9% advantage. This near-parity between multi-core and single-core deltas suggests the architectural differences between the two chips manifest uniformly across scaling scenarios.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the i9-7980XE posts 10530 in multi-core, while the Xeon D-2775TE manages 9745, again an 8.1% gap. Single-core R20 results follow suit: 1486 versus 1375, also 8.1%. The consistency of this margin across R15 and R20 indicates that neither chip gains a relative advantage from the newer workload in that benchmark suite.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding of the three versions, reinforces the pattern. The i9-7980XE scores 25072 in multi-core, and the Xeon D-2775TE scores 23204, an 8.1% difference. Single-core R23 shows 3539 against 3275, once more an 8.1% gap. Across all six head-to-head comparisons, the i9-7980XE wins every test, with the Xeon D-2775TE never managing to close the gap below 7.9%.

Looking at the broader benchmark database, the i9-7980XE's average benchmark score is 7018, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon D-2775TE averages 6711, sitting in the 62nd percentile. The 307-point difference in average scores is modest relative to the head-to-head deltas, partly because the database averages include other workloads not directly compared here. The i9-7980XE's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 (avg 6992, 0.4% behind), the Intel Pentium Gold G6400 (avg 6969, 0.7% behind), and the Intel Core i9-9960X (avg 6938, 1.2% behind), while the AMD EPYC 7302P sits 1.1% ahead. The Xeon D-2775TE's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 (exactly matching at 6710), the AMD EPYC 72F3 (6710, 0.2% behind), and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX (6760, 0.7% ahead).

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the Intel Core i9-7980XE for any workload measured in these benchmarks. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with a minimum margin of 7.9% and a typical margin of 8.1%. The consistency of this advantage across single-core and multi-core tests means the i9-7980XE is simply faster in every recorded scenario, regardless of thread count or workload type.

However, the decision is not purely about benchmark scores. The Xeon D-2775TE belongs to a different market segment, listed as Server/Workstation, and its specifications reflect that positioning. It has a lower TDP of 100 watts versus the i9-7980XE's 165 watts, it supports ECC memory, and it uses a BGA 2579 socket, indicating a soldered, embedded-style platform. The i9-7980XE is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier, a 2066 socket, and no ECC support.

For a user building a desktop workstation where raw Cinebench performance is the priority, the i9-7980XE is the clear pick. Its higher core count (18 versus 16), higher boost clock (4.40 GHz versus 3.10 GHz), and consistently higher scores make it the faster processor. For a user deploying a server or embedded system where ECC memory, lower power consumption, and a compact BGA package are critical, the Xeon D-2775TE is the appropriate choice despite its lower benchmark numbers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i9-7980XE wins with a score of 25072, which is 8.1% higher than the Intel Xeon D-2775TE's 23204.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two in any recorded test?

A: The smallest gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the i9-7980XE scores 356 versus the Xeon D-2775TE's 330, a 7.9% difference.

Q: Does the Xeon D-2775TE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon D-2775TE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i9-7980XE does not.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The i9-7980XE has 18 cores and 36 threads. The Xeon D-2775TE has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each chip?

A: The i9-7980XE has an average benchmark score of 7018, and the Xeon D-2775TE has an average benchmark score of 6711.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The i9-7980XE has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the Xeon D-2775TE has a boost clock of 3.10 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The i9-7980XE has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the Xeon D-2775TE has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz for the i9-7980XE and 2000.00 MHz for the Xeon D-2775TE (note the database records the Xeon's base clock in MHz, which is 2.00 GHz). Boost clocks are 4.40 GHz and 3.10 GHz, respectively. TDP is 165 watts for the i9-7980XE and 100 watts for the Xeon D-2775TE.

The sockets are entirely different: the i9-7980XE uses Intel Socket 2066, while the Xeon D-2775TE uses Intel BGA 2579. The i9-7980XE has an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon D-2775TE does not. Memory bandwidth also differs, with the i9-7980XE rated at 85.3 GB/s and the Xeon D-2775TE at 93.9 GB/s, despite both using quad-channel DDR4. PCIe support differs: the i9-7980XE has Gen 3 with 44 lanes, while the Xeon D-2775TE has Gen 4 with 32 lanes.

Market segments and production statuses are opposite: the i9-7980XE is a Desktop part that is end-of-life, while the Xeon D-2775TE is an active Server/Workstation part. Release dates are far apart, with the i9-7980XE launching in 2017 and the Xeon D-2775TE in 2022.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is substantial. The i9-7980XE is built on Intel's 14 nm process using the Skylake-X architecture, while the Xeon D-2775TE uses the newer 10 nm process with Ice Lake-D architecture. The die size for the i9-7980XE is 484 mm²; no die size is recorded for the Xeon D-2775TE.

Cache hierarchies differ in both capacity and organization. The i9-7980XE has 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 24.75 MB L3. The Xeon D-2775TE has larger per-core caches: 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2, with a shared 25 MB L3. The Xeon's slightly larger total L3 and larger per-core caches reflect its newer architecture, though the benchmark data shows this does not translate into a performance advantage in the tested workloads.

The i9-7980XE's memory bandwidth is 85.3 GB/s, while the Xeon D-2775TE achieves 93.9 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i9-7980XE does not. PCIe generation and lane counts differ, with the i9-7980XE on Gen 3 (44 lanes) and the Xeon D-2775TE on Gen 4 (32 lanes). The i9-7980XE belongs to the Core i9 Extreme (X-Series 7th Gen) generation, while the Xeon D-2775TE is part of the Xeon D (Ice Lake-D) family.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-7980XE wins in every recorded benchmark category. It leads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core variants. Its higher core count and much higher boost clock (4.40 GHz versus 3.10 GHz) drive consistent advantages in rendering and CPU-bound tasks. The i9-7980XE is the choice for desktop users prioritizing raw compute throughput, as evidenced by its 8.1% lead in multi-core R23 and its 7.9% lead in single-core R15.

The Intel Xeon D-2775TE, despite losing all six head-to-head tests, wins in areas not captured by these benchmarks. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for data integrity in server environments. It has a lower TDP of 100 watts, making it more power-efficient for dense deployments. It uses a BGA 2579 socket, suitable for embedded and compact systems where socketed CPUs are impractical. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 93.9 GB/s, and it supports PCIe Gen 4, which offers faster I/O for modern peripherals. The Xeon D-2775TE is the appropriate pick for server or workstation platforms where reliability, power efficiency, and platform features outweigh raw Cinebench performance.